pwlm
A different way to look at this is to question what "old slop" actually means.
The reason not to publish in Nature is that it might take a long time to get everything right in the paper to publish, to the point it takes years to get it read. Publishing fewer results faster spreads the results faster.
1. Open peer-review to anyone interested instead of only select few. HN is an example of this phenomenon but not for novelty specifically.
2. Permit publication of papers that are shorter for results to spread faster. AI papers are a good example of this phenomenon.
Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.
An AI or search engine that identified the value of a contribution and paid the author directly from advertising money based on query traffic could be a way to solve this.
For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider truediffs.com. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.
I want something different than Reddit or HackerNews. Something that can't be gamed by flawed metrics or AI. There are some ideas for a different way to rank comments.
Edit: I wonder why this HN thread doesn't get lots of comments, why a similar thread from a week ago also didn't get lots of comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46118229 but a thread posted specifically by https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=david927 gets hundrerds to thousands of comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45869146
This may be a failure of the platform protocol. I wish the protocol was: each sentence written must be true. Grok ranking people's posts based on true will be interesting.
AI != LLMs. A future version of better AI might become capable of saying "I don't know."
The mess of figuring out what the facts are, in a way, already has deployed solutions. Journalists are a form of fact checkers. Big news companies with multi-million budgets pay journalists to check things. In effect there already is a market for fact-checking. Managing perceptions by twisting facts is something many have been accused of. When news companies are found to have spread lies they possibly face penalties.
So if the big clunky enterprise version of a form of fact-checking is already in place and kind of working, why would something closer to the lean startup-y tail-end of the distribution of fact-checking not work? If a version of a facts marketplace is already working, why doubt it would ever work?
X paying users for engagement is a new variation of this. Prediction markets like Polymarket is another. Polymarket teaming up with TruthSocial could be an interesting result.
It's okay to have many contested subjects our society cannot agree on and which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. It's okay to say I don't know.
Maybe not "full", statistically, but many times I receive a similar impression.
The reason many comments are downvoted on HN in general is most often unknown to me. One interpretation is that it's a major flaw in HN.
This design decision by HN could be intentional, as a trade-off to achieve something else. For example, it could be done to have high velocity of discussion. High velocity could preserve an invariant of keeping or pulling users on the site.
If it's a trade-off, which would suggest something is given up for it, it might be worth exploring what's given up.
One plausible interpretation of a downvote without a comment is drive-by snark without rationalizing.
On the continuum of approval, where at one end there is endorsement and at the other disapproval, it's somewhere in-between. Even I who made the observation don't know exactly where. Sometimes something jumps out at me and I don't yet why.
It could be an incorrect observation. Some of what they said seems true, some false. I don't know enough about security specifically to say. I know a lot about other things to know he said some things that are true.
It's astonishment at perhaps some kind of law of the universe that things that seem one way may be a different way.
It's an exclamation at the poetic irony of someone expressing there's gray area in some things gets downvoted and their comments are in gray colour.
It's a way to introduce myself, to say hi Mr Monero user, and pass a super secret note.
I meant no disrespect.
Perhaps my reply here is astonishment at how interpretation of words may depend on imagination. As if words alone aren't enough.
I didn't write my comment to applaud them.
One possible solution to the accuracy problem is to turn facts into a marketplace. Make AIs deposit collateral for the facts they emit and have them lose the collateral and pay it to the user when it's found that statements they presented were false.
AI would be standing behind its words by having something to lose, like humans. A facts marketplace would make facts easy to challenge and hard to get right.
Working POC implementation of facts marketplace in my submissions.
If this isn't something people want then it should be shut down.
How will journals or conferences handle AI slop?
How would an online world that is optimized for humans, not algorithms, look like?
Should content creators get paid?
In the end this app builder didn't give me what I want.
It also looks like it uses bolt.new instead of be something built by the OP.